The case involves Glenda Hampton, the Appellee, who sustained a shoulder injury after a van owned by the Northwest Tennessee Human Resource Agency (NTHRA) backed into her vehicle while she was waiting in traffic. The accident, occurring on April 24, 2007, resulted in minor vehicle damage but led to significant medical issues for Hampton, who had no prior shoulder problems. Following the accident, she experienced escalating pain in her right shoulder, prompting consultations with multiple orthopedic surgeons. Initial treatments included pain management and physical therapy, but her condition did not improve. An MRI revealed a partial rotator cuff tear and degenerative changes, leading to a diagnosis of a shoulder strain. Ultimately, after the pain persisted, Dr. Apurva Dalal performed arthroscopic surgery on March 25, 2009, to repair the injuries. The trial court found the accident to be the cause of Hampton's shoulder issues, leading to the surgery, despite the Defendant disputing causation. The court affirmed the original judgment in favor of Hampton following the Defendant's appeal.
Dr. Dalal attributed Ms. Hampton's shoulder injuries to a car accident, leading to necessary treatment. On April 22, 2008, Ms. Hampton filed a negligence complaint against NTHRA, which responded on July 10, 2008. Before trial, both parties agreed on liability and the reasonableness of medical expenses, but NTHRA contested the causal link between the accident and the shoulder surgery. A bench trial took place on November 20, 2009, with Ms. Hampton being the sole live witness. In addition to her testimony, depositions from Dr. Cobb, Dr. Smigielski, and Dr. Dalal, as well as various medical records and evidence from related lawsuits, were presented.
The trial court ruled in favor of Ms. Hampton, awarding her $102,552.40 in damages and making credibility findings: Dr. Cobb was deemed not credible and biased, while Dr. Smigielski's testimony was given less weight than Dr. Dalal's. Ms. Hampton was found credible, with the court noting she had no shoulder symptoms before the accident, which exacerbated pre-existing arthritic changes requiring surgery. The court assessed her impairment at thirteen percent and acknowledged that her injuries would impact her future employment.
The awarded damages included $50,552.40 for medical expenses, $20,000 for pain and suffering, $20,000 for permanent disability, $2,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, and $10,000 for lost wages. A final judgment was entered on December 2, 2009, and NTHRA appealed on December 16, 2009, raising issues regarding the causation of the shoulder condition and the excessiveness of the damages. The case is to be reviewed de novo, presuming the trial court's factual findings are correct unless contradicted by evidence. Legal conclusions will be reviewed without such a presumption.
The trial judge is better positioned than appellate courts to assess witness credibility due to their ability to observe the witnesses' demeanor during testimony. The credibility given to a witness's testimony is primarily determined by the trier of fact, and appellate courts will give great weight to those determinations unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In cases involving expert medical testimony presented via deposition, appellate courts can independently assess the credibility of that evidence.
In negligence claims, five elements must be proven: a duty of care, a breach of that duty, an injury or loss, causation in fact, and proximate cause. Causation, the only disputed element in this case, requires proof that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct. Causation is treated as a question of fact, reviewed with a presumption of correctness, meaning the appellate court will not overturn the trial court's finding unless the evidence strongly contradicts it.
During the trial, Ms. Hampton provided live testimony indicating no prior shoulder issues and described escalating pain following an accident, which persisted until her surgery. Although she initially stated she felt fine post-accident, she clarified that tenderness was present daily until her surgery, which ultimately improved her condition. The trial court found her credible, and the appellate court found no compelling evidence to dispute this assessment, affirming the trial court's conclusions regarding her shoulder problems and the effectiveness of the surgery. The court also considered the deposition of her treating physicians, allowing for independent credibility assessments.
Dr. Cobb, the first orthopedic surgeon to treat Ms. Hampton, examined her on August 27, 2007, noting her shoulder and neck pain but no movement limitations or signs of rotator cuff issues. Subsequent visits revealed persistent pain but full shoulder motion, with Dr. Cobb suggesting she may have been exaggerating her symptoms. An MRI on October 31, 2007, indicated a partial rotator cuff tear and degenerative changes, but Dr. Cobb stated such tears are common in older adults and not necessarily linked to the accident. He posited the accident might have caused only a mild sprain and questioned Ms. Hampton’s credibility, referring to the tear as a "so-called tear." The trial court found Dr. Cobb's testimony lacking credibility, particularly given his ongoing lawsuit from another client of Ms. Hampton’s counsel.
Dr. Smigielski, another orthopedic surgeon for Ms. Hampton, noted her inconsistent pain and normal motion during a March 3, 2008 visit. He acknowledged the MRI findings but indicated that many individuals her age have similar tears, suggesting surgery was not warranted at that time. He also recognized that a preexisting tear could be aggravated by trauma.
Dr. Dalal, the surgeon who ultimately performed Ms. Hampton’s surgery, treated her on October 14, 2008, administering a cortisone shot and ordering another MRI. His evaluations indicated improvement in her pain and mobility but concluded that she would likely require surgery due to her permanent conditions, advising her to avoid strenuous activities.
Dr. Dalal opined that Ms. Hampton's shoulder issues began after an accident on April 24, 2007, attributing her rotator cuff and labrum tears to a jerking motion during the incident. Following her surgery on March 25, 2009, Dr. Dalal confirmed significant tears in both the labrum and rotator cuff, which he repaired, along with excising the distal clavicle and removing the subacromial bursa. Post-surgery, Ms. Hampton showed significant improvement in pain, motion, and strength. The trial court found a causal relationship between the accident and the shoulder surgery, awarding Ms. Hampton $102,552.40 in damages. This amount included $50,552.40 for medical expenses, $20,000 for past and future pain and suffering, $20,000 for permanent disability, $2,000 for loss of enjoyment of life, and $10,000 for lost wages and earning capacity. The court's determination of damages, while subject to de novo review for legal standards, is fact-specific and carries a presumption of correctness. The court concluded that the damages awarded were reasonable, taking into account Ms. Hampton's persistent pain from the day after the accident until her surgery.
Ms. Hampton testified that while her surgery reduced most of her pain, she continues to experience some discomfort. Dr. Dalal assessed her with a permanent medical impairment rating of 22% to the upper extremity and 13% to the body as a whole. He indicated that she would be restricted from lifting over 25 pounds and from lifting over 10 pounds overhead, and she should avoid repetitive pushing, pulling, and manual labor. At the time of trial, Ms. Hampton was 53 years old, had limited education, and was deemed unable to work in any job requiring extensive use of her right arm. Her previous employment in a factory and caregiving roles were no longer viable due to her shoulder issues.
Regarding her loss of enjoyment of life, Ms. Hampton reported significant limitations post-surgery, although she could still fish, her gardening activities were compromised, and she could perform minimal yard work without operating a lawnmower. She also testified about lost wages stemming from her inability to continue working due to shoulder pain, which has hindered her ability to secure full-time employment and limited her future job prospects. The trial court’s award of $102,552.40 in damages was upheld, with the decision affirmed and costs of the appeal taxed to the Appellant, Northwest Tennessee Human Resource Agency.
